C-2/65
ECLI:EU:C:1965:11
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61965CO0002
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
FERRIERA ERNESTO PREO v HIGH AUTHORITY
adopted, 850 kilowatt-hours per ton of of inquiry requested by Preo e Figli? The steel produced, is close to that found in applicant would like to prove by witnesses other cases, in which a ruling has already that the running-in period lasted from Octo been given or which are presently in prog ber 1956 to the end of 1957, that during this ress. period and even afterwards many mistakes Two remarks however require to be made. were made, that the undertaking experien To the undertaking, which, in order to dis ced difficulties in the training and use of its count this figure, put forward the special work force, and that other circumstances, difficulties which it encountered, the High such as, for example, the materials used also Authority replies that the experts took contributed to bring about an excessive account of all those factors when they fixed consumption of electricity. the ratio of kilowatt-hours to metric tons of I do not however think that a ruling should steel with a margin large enough to encom be given in favour of this request, for several pass the difficulties in question. This is pos reasons. We know that, until the day before sible but not certain and by definition a the oral proceedings, the undertaking had flat rate cannot reflect all the special fea every opportunity to have examined on the tures of the cases. Furthermore, as I have spot the special circumstances on which it already indicated, the High Authority now wishes to rely, as other undertakings seems to have left out of account the under have succeeded in doing, and it declined the taking's own arisings of ferrous scrap for opportunity offered it. Today it still limits re-use and of the existence of stock in fixing itself to bringing before you mere allega a flat rate ratio between the input of pur tions quite unsupported by any shred of chased scrap and the production of steel. evidence. The complete lack of evidence But although the undertaking draws atten was sufficient in the Barge Case, 14/64 of tion to this alteration in the method of 16 February 1965, for you to refuse the assessment, it does not however base any additional measures of inquiry which were particular argument upon it. requested. Finally, it appears to me hazard Although the High Authority's decision ous to endeavour to establish the accuracy therefore seems to be beyond criticism in of facts as remote in time as these by means principle, perhaps a certain margin of un of witnesses who are mostly employees of certainty in fact remains. Is it sufficient to the undertaking. justify an order for the additional measures
Finally I am of the opinion:
— that Preo e Figli's application should be dismissed; and
— that the applicant should bear the costs.
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT 12 FEBRUARY 1965 1
In Case 2/65 R
FERRIERA ERNESTO PREO E FIGLI, Societa in Nome Collettivo, having its registered office in Venezia-Marghera, represented and assisted by Raoul Levis of the Venice
1 — Language of the Case: Italian.
ORDER OF 12. 2. 1965 — CASE 2/65
Bar and of the Corte di Cassazione, Rome, with an address for service in Luxem bourg at the Chambers of Camille Wagner, 31 rue des Roses,
applicant,
V
HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY, represented by its Legal Adviser, Italo Telchini, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at its offices, 2 place de Metz,
defendant,
Application for the suspension of the operation of two individual decisions of the High Authority concerning the contributions due by the applicant undertaking under the scheme for the equalization of imported ferrous scrap.
Facts
Whereas the applicant undertaking, by application lodged at the Court Registry on 15 January 1965, sought the annulment of two decisions of the High Authority of 13 November 1964, the first of which fixes the tonnage of the applicant's ferrous scrap chargeable for the period from 1 October 1956 to 30 November 1958 and the second of which, on the basis of this figure, requires it to pay the sum of 55 700 153 lire by way of equalization contributions;
Whereas by a separate document, lodged at the Registry on 25 January 1965, the applicant requested the Court, before giving a ruling on the substance of the case, to order the suspension of the operation of the two decisions contested in the main action;
Whereas by a document lodged on 29 January 1965, the defendant contended that the present application should be dismissed as inadmissible or, in any event, as unfounded, and that the decision on costs should be reserved for the final judgment;
Whereas pursuant to Article 83 (2) of the Rules of Procedure an application for suspension shall state 'the subject matter of the dispute, the circumstances giving rise to urgency and the factual and legal grounds establishing a prima facie case for the interim measures' applied for;
Whereas the application for suspension in this case does not comply with these requirements;
FERRIERA ERNESTO PREO v HIGH AUTHORITY
Whereas it states no circumstance of such a nature as to prove a case of urgency nor does it put forward any grounds capable of establishing a case for granting the suspension requested;
Whereas the application is therefore inadmissible;
On those grounds,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, especially Articles 33, 36, 39 and 92; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Coal and Steel Community; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, especially Articles 69, 83, 84, 85 and 86,
The President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
hereby orders:
1. The application is dismissed;
2. The costs are reserved.
Luxembourg, 12 February 1965.
A. Van Houtte Ch. L. Hammes
Registrar President